OpenNet Initiative. Internet Filtering in Iran in 2004-2005: A Country Study. 9 Apr. 2009.

This repotr by the OpenNet Initiative is a thorough analysis of the internet filtering technology used in Iran. The study begins with a detailed description of the regulation and censorship restrictions in place both in print media and online. Then, the ONI attempts to study the Iranian filtering system. Through accessing remote computers behind Iran's firewalls, the ONI tested a list of websites to see whether they would be accessible or not. They try this technique on multiple computers and do it several different times in order to get an understanding of how consistently a certain website is blocked. Through analyzing the content of HTTP headers and web site loading time, researchers separated sites into four categories: unfiltered, possibly filtered through redirection, possibly filtered with a possible network connection error, and definitively filtered. In Iran, researchers concentrated on two ISPs: the private ParsOnline and the state-owned TCI. Results showed that only one-third of websites tested were blocked. Sites with pornographic material or that provided access to circumvention tools was filtered more successfully. Over the testing period of a year, filtering increased, particularly the filtering of blogs.

This study is perhaps the only empirical study that tests the regulation mechanism in Iran. By providing details of the filtering software and giving empirical data, readers get a clearer picture of the breadth of content that the Iranian government seeks to block. The filtering in Iran appears to be at a sophisticated level, moving beyond pornographic content that violates Islamic law and focusing on more personal forms of expression, such as blogs. One interesting result, however, is that non-Iran specific sites or non-Farsi content is harder for the filtering software to block. Still, the software in place results in an "overbreadth" of sites being blocked, censoring more forms of expression than needed/

Reporters Without Borders. Reporters sans frontières - Internet - Iran. 2004. 8 Apr. 2009.

This report by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres, or RSF) is part of a series of studies that examines obstacles to the flow of information over the internet. RSF's main concern with blogs is that they provide a more-objective source of news than the traditional Iranian media and that they allow for the organization of anti-government protests and demonstration. The RSF report also details the history of Internet regulation in the country, naming the bureaus responsible for controlling access and content on the internet. RSF reports cases of both reformists and conservative hard-liners using government in order to control the Internet. It then details the stories of three cyber-dissidents who have suffered harrassment at the hands of Iranian government officials.

The RSF report provides great background on internet regulation. While efforts at regulation were intensified after the report was published, RSF's concerns remain valid and many of the government policies remain the same. The report also situates the Iranian case in a larger context of internet censorship, which helps by providing opportunities for comparison and contrast. Furthermore, the report demonstrates that both factions of the Iranian government are taking steps to control the spread of information free from government control, perhaps presenting an argument to the idea that this new technology will inherently lead to democratization.

Tehrani, Hamid. "Iran's Revolutionary Guards Take on the Internet." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 8 Jan. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

Tehrani's post addresses an announcement made at the end of 2008 by a branch of the Iranian army that it plans to launch 10,000 blogs for military forces. The ideologically-motivated group sees blogs as a threat to the Islamic Republic and are concerned that it might lead to a non-violent revolution. Tehrani claims that a chief cause of the Revolutionary Guards' action is fears over the state's lack of control over the internet; the Iranian government controls all other media. In 2008, detailed information about corruption was posted and spread on blogs. As Iranian citizens spread the word, public outcry grew, causing many high-ranked officials to resign. Tehrani notes that this government accountability is much more prevalent now that Iranian citizens themselves have the ability to publish information. He remains skeptical about the Revolutionary Guards' efforts, stating that Iranian conservative media has never been able to attract readers--despite the lack of competition from other sources.

Tehrani's post mentions an intriguing policy decision that demonstrates changing attitudes in Iranian government. This "if you can't beat them, join them" belief is a shift from a policy of attempted censorship and filtering that has been largely ineffective. The post is also one of the few sources that mentions the existence of conservative blogs. Interestingly, mullahs and conservative politicians have also been turning to blogs to express their views, and many are well-read. Tehrani's critique of the government policy, however, is that these blogs will essentially be "mass-produced". The government is likely to keep a strict eye on them in order to ensure they reflect official policies. This regulation is counterintuitive to the spontaneous, often-opinionated dialogue that makes blogs so popular in Iran, which is likely to render them ineffective as propaganda tools.

Alavi, Nasrin. We Are Iran. Brooklyn: Soft Skull, 2005.

Alavi's book is an examination of Iranian political and social history that integrates excerpts from blogs into the historical narrative. The book begins by discussing the particular role of bloggers in society. Alavi examines the rise of blogs and the subsequent government censorship. Alavi then explains the role of history in promoting Iran's blog culture. She points to the closing of reformist newspapers and state control of the media. She also mentions the demographic shift taking place in Iran that has resulted in a large population under 30 who is eager for change. Alavi's entire book points to a conflict between globalization and tradition; she sees a Western cultural onslaught brought by the technological revolution (which introduced satellite dishes and PCs to Iran) in opposition to the Islamic revolutionary values promoted by the state. Throughout the chapters of her book, in which Alavi explores the perspectives of Iranian youth, Alavi is constantly discussing events in terms of their effects on blogging culture in Iran. She then connects bloggers' reactions and comments to actions taken by the state.

By connecting the nation's history with reactions or reflections from its people, Alavi demonstrates the power of Iranian blogs to critique the dominant social culture. Furthermore, Alavi's choice to integrate excerpts shows the use of blogs as a self-expression tool. Alavi also frequently demonstrates the link between blog posts and social movements, a connection similar to that of Chinese internet users. Alavi's selection of excerpts also demonstrates the wide variety of topics approached by Iranian bloggers and the styles they use to portray their situations.

Van Buren, Chris. "Morozov: The Internet No Democratic Cure." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 3 Apr. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

In a post on The Berkman Center's Internet & Democracy Blog, Van Buren responds to Evgeny Morozov's piece in the Boston Review on cyber-utopianism. He agrees with Morozov's assessment that intellectuals tend to overestimate the Internet's power to democratize, pointing to the fact that access to the Internet has not removed human rights abusers from power. Van Buren is concerned that online dissidence has led to a wave of heavier repression and authoritarianism that opposes the democratization many intellectuals seek to promote. Yet while believing that intellectuals' idea of technological determinism is naive, he also sees a possiblity for the web’s influence on democratic reform to exist, but in a subtle and slow manner. In order to defend this point, Van Buren examines the Iranian case. The sheer number and variety of Iranian blogs mean that total censorship is impossible, and this promotes the free speech necessary for democratic change. By doing so, Van Buren argues, freer speech becomes more of a norm, and this slowly will defeat censorship. Van Buren also notes that the blogosphere gives a voice to moderates who would otherwise be excluded from the traditional media's emphasis on polarized viewpoints.

Van Buren examines the implicit effects of the existence of so many Iranian blogs. While there is a dispute as to whether or not all Iranian bloggers seek to effect political change, the fact remains that the forum to discuss virtually anything remains open and free to access. Van Buren is suggesting that a social norm will be transferred from the Internet to the real world. At the same time, however, Van Buren ignores the recent efforts of the Iranian government to curb blogging through legal consequences such as imprisonment.

Lovink, Geert. Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Lovink's book is primarily concerned with the rise of blogs and Web 2.0. He argues that blogs in the United States are bringing about the decay of traditional media and sees them as being largely driven by concerns about social ranking. In essence, he sees bloggers as "creative nihilists" who are "good for nothing." Lovink spends a portion of his book discussing Iran, a country where blogging's growth means the activity is no longer marginal. He notes that anonymity is essential for this growth. He then discuss the notion that blogging facilitates indigenization by creating an environment which gives cyberspace the same feel as the real world. In essence, Lovink believes that because blogs are so prevalent, people simply transfer their activities online. By doing this in the name of preserving their freedom, Lovink fears that Iranians are isolating themselves from the global community. He notes that many of these bloggers simply seek to expand their social networks and gain a special authority that they could not otherwise gain in the real world. Lovink also points out that anonymous blogging in Iran may not be as safe as Iranian bloggers believe. While ISPs are not centralized as in other countries (specifically China), it is hardly difficult for the authorities to track users based on their IP addresses (recent arrests of bloggers indicates this fact). Because of this, anonymous bloggers in Iran are really deluding themselves into complacency.

I chose to include Lovink's study in this book because of its counterpoint to traditional thinking about the Iranian blogosphere. Before addressing the issue of "nihilist blogging", it is important to mention that Lovink's perspective on anonymous blogging is valid. With ISPs submitting to state control, anonymous blogging would seem to largely be a social-norm. Yet Lovink doesn't seem too well-versed in the content of Iranian blogs. Many of the sentiments expressed on Iranian blogs would be unacceptable in Iranian public spaces. The fact that discussions of love (or other topics that would be considered immoral) can only be had on the internet seems to indicate that it is more than an extension of a person's physical world.

Jensen, Peder Are Nøstvold. "Blogging Iran: A Case Study of Iranian English-Language Weblogs." MA thesis. U of Oslo, 2004. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.duo.uio.no/sok/>.

Jensen's thesis challenges the notion that the internet exists in a "political or cultural vacuum". While he acknowledges that it is difficult to control information on the internet, he does point out a number of successful cases in which governments have succesfully controlled access to the internet in order to intimidate users and prevent them from seeking dissident viewpoints. Jensen also notes that since its introduction into authoritarian societies, the internet has yet to effect any change in authoritarian government. The bulk of Jensen's paper is a case study of Iranian English-language blogs. In his study, Jensen discovered that the censorship of these blogs has been increasing and that the majority of blogs seem to explicitly reference censorship and filtering. Additionally, he notes that the majority of bloggers inside Iran use anonymous identities. In spite of the recent crackdown on bloggers, Jensen reports that Iranians still have the most trust in the Internet.

Jensen's article provides a helpful set of excerpts and analysis that demonstrate the concerns of Iranian bloggers and their efforts to effect social and political change. These excerpts show that despite the main focus of these bloggers (whether it be art, sports, politics, or their personal lives), the concerns of censorship and political repression are ubiquitous. By providing these excerpts, Jensen thus explains the government's perceived need for filtering and censorship.